Order-6.
Date-16/03/2017.
Parties are present through Ld. Lawyers on each side.
The petition for non maintainable dated 14.02.2017 filed by the OPs along with its objection is taken up for hearing.
We have perused the petition of complaint and other materials on record.
The instant case as we find has been filed in respect of dispute regarding alleged inflation of a bill in respect of a Mobile connection of the Complainant Company’s end that Internet facility by the OP. From Annexure ‘D’ of the petition of complaint it appears that the Complainant has admitted that the connection was in the name of the Company and the disconnection of the said Mobile will be highly affected relating to commercial activities of the Company. So, it appears that the Complainant has been using mobile number for commercial or business purpose. From the Complainant petition it is amply clear that the Complainant is using services of OPs for commercial purpose.
The definition of Consumer is envisaged u/s.2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act and on plain reading of the aforesaid definition, it would be seen that the definition itself carves out an inbuilt explanation to the effect that if the services of the OP are hired or availed for commercial purpose then the hirer of the service would not fall within the definition of the consumer.
Considering the averment in the petition of complaint and materials on record it can clearly be concluded that Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1(d) or ‘Complainant’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of C.P. Act 1986.
According to Section 2(1) (m) of the CP Act, ‘person’ includes :
- A firm whether registered or not;
- A Hindu undivided family;
- A Co-operative society;
- Every other association of persons whether registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.
A plain reading of the aforesaid definitions of ‘Consumer’ and ‘person’ makes no bone of contention of the fact that apart from an individual human being, only the aforementioned four categories have been brought under the fold of the 1986 Act, other not.
It appears from the cause title of complaint case that the Complainant happens to be a Pvt. Ltd. Company. Pvt. Ltd. Companies are being run by Board of Directors of the Company and it is given as such that such a Company and its Board of Directors enjoy distinct entity, separate from each ; more so, as the same does not fall amongst the aforementioned categories or organizations. We are afraid, the Complainant cannot be treated as a ‘Consumer’.
It also appears that the bill in question stands in the name of the Complainant Company. It is also appears that the Complainant Company paid off Rs.52,577.10 towards the usage charges to the OPs as regards the disputed bill. So, it appears that the Complainant has already paid off the disputed amount and so the question of cause of action does not also arise, aftermath.
We think that the complaint, as such, is not maintainable in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the case merits no success.
Hence
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs being not maintainable in CP Act, 1986 as amended, till date.
